ReviewInternational journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention2025
The value of pregnancy-related factors in the prediction of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review.
Review in International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Pregnancy-related factors are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and may help identify women at high cardiovascular risk. This study aims to provide an overview of prediction models for CVD which included pregnancy-related factors and to evaluate the impact of these factors on model performance. Methods: PubMed and Embase were systematically searched until March 2023 for studies reporting on the development or validation of prediction models for CVD which included pregnancy-related factors. Data extraction was performed using the CHARMS checklist. Risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST. Results: Seven studies were included. C-indices ranged between 0.63 and 0.79. Adding pregnancy-related factors resulted in improved C-index in four studies, ranging from 0.0033 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.0022-0.0051) to 0.004 (95 % CI: 0.002-0.006). Net reclassification improvement (NRI) for events was improved in two studies, ranging from 0.01 (95 % CI: 0.003-0.02) to 0.038 (95 % CI: 0.003-0.074). NRI for non-events was improved in three studies, ranging from 0.002 (95 % CI: 0.0001-0.005) to 0.02 (95 % CI: 0.001-0.04). Two studies showed both low risk of bias and low concern regarding applicability. Subgroup analyses by age in three studies indicated larger improvements in model performance in younger women. Conclusion: Addition of pregnancy-related factors results in limited improvements in performance of CVD prediction models, with relatively larger improvements in younger women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.